Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!pez
From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: re: The true God lives in the real world
Message-ID: <314@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 12:38:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.314
Posted: Mon Aug 26 12:38:43 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 20:34:16 EDT
References: <56@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway, N.J.
Lines: 83


	Dave Clark's followup article to mine contained a number of
fallacies which I would like to address here. He said that based on my
view of God, this Damager-God isn't very efficient at what He does.
Well, Dave, I never said that He was. An earlier article stated that
this God was at best created along with the universe, so He is not the
perfect all-powerful ``creator'' He is imagined to be. He has obviously
failed at His task of complete enslavement. But, we may well ask, would
such complete enslavement serve His purpose? Maybe He needs to have
some apparent freedom that He doesn't tamper with, so as to make His
torture more complete. By doing this, He gains even more control. Notice
the ranting and raving of people like Ken Ardnt and Steve Dyer about my
article. The contempt for a position that they seem too afraid to confront.
Such ranting and raving serves a purpose for this God. It reassures Him (it
is apparent that He is rather insecure, judging from His commandment ``Thou
shalt have no other Gods before me'') of His control to see that His sheep
(such as Ardnt) laugh off the evidence so wholeheartedly. It seems that this
is the reason He allows people like me to learn this and even to talk about
it openly. He is seeking reassurance that His power is still strong.

	Dave also said that ``most of the evil perpetrated by God was
actually committed by mankind.'' I beg to differ. Did mankind destroy
the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? Did mankind flood the Earth destroying
almost all life on it? Did mankind invent racial hatred (or was it infused
into us at the Tower of Babel)? Before Babel we were all working together
on a great project, unimpeded by God's whimsical interference. And God saw
that this was bad. People working together in harmony might learn too many
things about the universe, they might learn about God. So He chose to put
a stop to it by infusing us with different languages and instilling race
hatred among what became ``different'' peoples. What did we do to merit
such heinous acts being done to us? Disobeying God? Is that all it takes?
Who is He to mete out ``punishment'' for ``transgressions'' when it is He
who is evil?

	Is it any wonder people like Don Black today are talking about
how horrible ``one-worldism'' is, and spreading newer and better race
hatred? Black is an agent of God, a whorshiper of the pig monster in the
sky, and he is doing His bidding by spreading hatred and lies. God feeds
on the insecurities of such people, who need to blame other people for
their problems (when they should be blaming Him). He points them in the
right direction and sets them off spreading hate. Let us not fool
ourselves into thinking that this is man's doing.  Don Black is a servant
of God. God is most definitely on His side. That is why we will see a
horrible bloodbath (as predicted by God?) in the coming years.

	In addition, Dave assumes that I ``may have been hurt by people
in [my] lifetime,'' and that this is the basis for my theory. Sorry to
disillusion you, Dave, but I was not hurt by people, I was hurt by God.
I came to realize that the events that happened to me and to others that
damaged and harmed us were solely the doing of the Damager-God. Even things
done by people were certainly not their fault, but the fault of the evil
God. I blame no person for what happens, for this is clearly out of our
hands. I am not ``cry[ing] for help,'' because no human (and certainly
no deity) can help us out of this state. I also think your remarks on
suicide are about as offbase as humanly possible. I have to wonder
where such ideas would come from. Do you subconsciously wish that
someone with my knowledge might really want to die?  I don't, you know.
I know it's going to happen someday, but I will seek happiness in all
humanely possible ways in this life, while I can, despite the efforts
of God. Do you hope that I am somehow ``disturbed'' just because I
hold these views that you don't like? The only thing I am disturbed
about is the way people so willingly accept the lies of God.

	Finally, Dave speculates that my purpose might have been to
ridicule the Christian God. That is most certainly a part of my purpose.
Again, unlike Tim Maroney, who saw hypocrisy and inconsistency in the
Bible and concluded that this God could not be real, I saw the same
things and concluded that this God is real and that He is a pig, out to
deceive and enslave us all. I think the hypocrisy points to a liar telling
the story rather than the story simply being inconsistent and therefore
wrong.  We must look beyond the inconsistencies and look for motivation.
Assuming God wrote this book with inconsistencies intact, what was His
purpose? He tells us He is good while telling us about His evil actions.
Is this for the purpose of making us ``learn'' that when He does bad, it
is good? What lessons are we to learn from this? Dave claims that my
theory is no better than any other explanation he's heard. I claim that
the evidence is far better on my side than on the God whorshiping side.
Perhaps an analysis of what my beliefs and pro-God religious beliefs
have in common (along with where we differ) is in order. A future
article will be devoted to this.
-- 
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez